Elohim/Polytheism/Trinitarianism

[Finnegan]

I'm sorry if this is a repeat post, but I did not find this topic on the first few pages and their wasn't a sticky about it.

This is not specifically a "is the OT polytheistic" topic, and this is not specifically a "does the OT support the doctrine of the trinity" topic. The topic of this thread is: Does the use of the word Elohim in the Hebrew scriptures suggest polytheism, trinitarianism, or neither? My answer is that it supports neither.

The most common word for God in the Hebrew scriptures is Elohim. It is a general word for God, god, or gods and not a personal name. It is often brought into question because "im" is a plural ending in Hebrew.

The Problem With the Polytheistic View

Those who support the view that Elohim should always be translated as "gods" because of its plural ending are faced with a paradox. We'll take the first verse of the Bible as an example of this.

"In the beginning, God created . . . "

The word for God here is elohim, so those with the polytheistic view might say that the verse should read, "In the beginning, gods created. . . ." There is a big problem with this interpretation; it violates subject/verb agreement. The verb here is singular, and not plural, in Hebrew. Only one person is creating here. Every time that the word elohim appears in Hebrew scripture, and the verb associated with it is singular, the word is translated as god or God (depending on which god is being refered to). Every time (with only two exceptions that I can think of) that the word elohim appears in Hebrew scripture, and the verb associated with it is plural, the word is translated as gods.

The second problem that those with the polytheistic view must account for is that other singular gods are also called elohim. Baal is frequently called an elohim. Baal is called "god" and not "gods" because the word Baal itself is singular (the plural for Baal is Baalim), and because the verbs associated with Baal in these instances are singular. Note: there are times when the bible speaks of more than one Baal. During these instances, however, they are called baalim and are coupled with plural verbs. Baal simply means 'master,' and is no more a proper name than Elohim is, so this shouldn't be surprising.

Additionally, Moses is called the elohim of Pharaoh; there is, however, only one Moses in question.

The Problem With the Trinitarian View

Some Trinitarians celebrate the plural noun and singular verb as an obvious indication that we are dealing with multiple persons which form only one godhead. The problem with this view is similar to the problem with the Polytheistic view: elohim is coupled with a singular verb even when describing individuals who are not the God of Israel.

Is Moses a trinity? Is Baal?

Additionally, this phenomenon appears in more nouns than just elohim.

[Shaviv]

One view is that Elohim refers to the entire Divine Court, whereas Eloah (as in, Eloah-ya'akov, the deity of Jacob) refers only to actual deity and not to associated creatures like angels (Ofanim, Hayot, Seraphim, Mal'ahim, Hashmalim, and all other sorts).

[Boxy]

[Brynn Marcus]

Shaviv

One view is that Elohim refers to the entire Divine Court, whereas Eloah (as in, Eloah-ya'akov, the deity of Jacob) refers only to actual deity and not to associated creatures like angels (Ofanim, Hayot, Seraphim, Mal'ahim, Hashmalim, and all other sorts).

You beat me to it! But also, "Trinitarians" (which I think are all Christians but for Unitarians... well... I don't really know what Unitarians might be defined as) believe in the concept of the Trinity being both three persons and one. Kind of like how Jesus is both divine and human at the same time, not half and half, but all divine, and all human. Difficult concepts, but the point is, subject-verb disagreement doesn't conflict with these views at all. It's both plural and singular, like the Trinity.

[Finnegan]

Brynn Marcus

You beat me to it! But also, "Trinitarians" (which I think are all Christians but for Unitarians... well... I don't really know what Unitarians might be defined as)

I don't want to turn this into a debate on the doctrine of the trinity, but I'd still define Unitarians as Christians, so long as they believe that Jesus was Christ.

Brynn Marcus

believe in the concept of the Trinity being both three persons and one. Kind of like how Jesus is both divine and human at the same time, not half and half, but all divine, and all human.

I've always had it explained to me that the Trinity is three persons as one God. I've never heard it said that they are both three people and one person. In fact, I've always been told that saying that they are one person is heresy.

Brynn Marcus

Difficult concepts, but the point is, subject-verb disagreement doesn't conflict with these views at all. It's both plural and singular, like the Trinity.

I'll agree that it doesn't conflict, I'm just saying that I don't buy it as a logical conclusion. After all, other gods are called elohim and given singular verbs. If the solution to the elohim "problem" is that it is an indication of the trinity, then we'd have to extend that and say that those other gods are trinities as well.

[Theopneustos]

I don't know if you misread Brynn Marcus' text about God being three Persons and one. It would be a contradiction to say that God is three Persons and then to say that He is one Person. But it would not be a contradiction to say that God is three Persons, but one Being, or Godhead.*

*Note: Mormons and Jehova Witnesses will disagree with what I believe, so, for the sake of this argument, please do not come and attack me. I believe what I believe. You believe what you believe.

P.S. Finnegan, I apologize for bringing up the Trinity, as I see you do not want to turn this into a debate about Christian doctrine. But, I was just trying to clear a little bit up. wink

[Finnegan]

Theopneustos

I don't know if you misread Brynn Marcus' text about God being three Persons and one. It would be a contradiction to say that God is three Persons and then to say that He is one Person. But it would not be a contradiction to say that God is three Persons, but one Being, or Godhead.*

*Note: Mormons and Jehova Witnesses will disagree with what I believe, so, for the sake of this argument, please do not come and attack me. I believe what I believe. You believe what you believe.

I'm sorry, it does appear that I misread Brynn's statement. I'll agree with Theopneustos on this one; three persons as one godhead is not a contradiction, three persons as one person is.

My point is the same though; I don't think that the simple use of the word elohim necessitates a solution as complex as the trinity. Certain parts of the NT may, however, merit it.

Theopneustos

P.S. Finnegan, I apologize for bringing up the Trinity, as I see you do not want to turn this into a debate about Christian doctrine. But, I was just trying to clear a little bit up. wink

Don't worry about it; I brought up the Trinity, not you. And no, I don't want to turn it into a doctrinal debate, but I think your comment did more to keep everything on track than to distract.

[Berrylover]

Finnegan

I'm sorry if this is a repeat post, but I did not find this topic on the first few pages and their wasn't a sticky about it.

This is not specifically a "is the OT polytheistic" topic, and this is not specifically a "does the OT support the doctrine of the trinity" topic. The topic of this thread is: Does the use of the word Elohim in the Hebrew scriptures suggest polytheism, trinitarianism, or neither? My answer is that it supports neither.

The most common word for God in the Hebrew scriptures is Elohim. It is a general word for God, god, or gods and not a personal name. It is often brought into question because "im" is a plural ending in Hebrew.

The Problem With the Polytheistic View

Those who support the view that Elohim should always be translated as "gods" because of its plural ending are faced with a paradox. We'll take the first verse of the Bible as an example of this.

"In the beginning, God created . . . "

The word for God here is elohim, so those with the polytheistic view might say that the verse should read, "In the beginning, gods created. . . ." There is a big problem with this interpretation; it violates subject/verb agreement. The verb here is singular, and not plural, in Hebrew. Only one person is creating here. Every time that the word elohim appears in Hebrew scripture, and the verb associated with it is singular, the word is translated as god or God (depending on which god is being refered to). Every time (with only two exceptions that I can think of) that the word elohim appears in Hebrew scripture, and the verb associated with it is plural, the word is translated as gods.

The second problem that those with the polytheistic view must account for is that other singular gods are also called elohim. Baal is frequently called an elohim. Baal is called "god" and not "gods" because the word Baal itself is singular (the plural for Baal is Baalim), and because the verbs associated with Baal in these instances are singular. Note: there are times when the bible speaks of more than one Baal. During these instances, however, they are called baalim and are coupled with plural verbs. Baal simply means 'master,' and is no more a proper name than Elohim is, so this shouldn't be surprising.

Additionally, Moses is called the elohim of Pharaoh; there is, however, only one Moses in question.

The Problem With the Trinitarian View

Some Trinitarians celebrate the plural noun and singular verb as an obvious indication that we are dealing with multiple persons which form only one godhead. The problem with this view is similar to the problem with the Polytheistic view: elohim is coupled with a singular verb even when describing individuals who are not the God of Israel.

Is Moses a trinity? Is Baal?

Additionally, this phenomenon appears in more nouns than just elohim.

There are just some words that are naturaly pluralized in Hebrew, just like in English(i.e pants glasses, etc)